It's not for someone else to search for the details that will validate your claim.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Passengers ‘striking’
- Thread starter pompeyfan
- Start date
- Status
It's not for someone else to search for the details that will validate your claim.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Any assistance with what am I supposed to be Googling for?
tiptoptaff
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,029
The RMT twitter feed is a reel of rudeness and vitriol towards passengers who tweet them disgruntled about repeated walkouts. There appears to be no attempt to make peace and explain to the public what they're doing. It's all rather unpleasant.
Sorry I assumed people read the news.
Drunk train driver defended by union - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31372269
Driver who went through three red lights defended by union - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...s-planned-24hour-walkout-begins-a3812936.html
Not hard to find many examples of dangerous behaviour from drivers being defended by unions. So much for "safety".
tiptoptaff
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,029
I'd assume they were ASLEF, not RMT, so slightly irrelevant in this instance
The first one is the RMT on London Underground who claimed the breathalyser test was inappropriate for a driver who has diabetes and in resulted in the union voting in favour of industrial action in support of their suspended colleague.
tiptoptaff
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,029
Interesting - I thought ASLEF were the driver's union on the Underground
Given the ballot only involved 500 votes, I'd suggest that's a very small fraction of the total number of Underground drivers, so maybe the majority are ASLEF.
I do.
There's no indication that he was 'drunk'.
As I understand it. the issue wasn't that he was removed/agreed to a move from driving duties but rather the way that it was done. The strike was because the Union believed that the correct process wasn't followed.
And you don't remember these cases? Surprising, but anyway.
They failed a breathalyser. A pretty good indication of being drunk and unfit to drive safely.
The TFL statement was - "We had a meeting with him, as agreed with the trade union, in which we agreed with him he would go to a station staff role- that's where he came from in the first place, he was station staff.
If a driver goes through a red light, there could be a train in front of them which gives a risk of collision. It endangers customers and endangers that driver and other staff members."
A nice clear statement about the danger this person posed to TFL's customers and how and why they had dealt with it; quite fairly by not sacking them immediately.
Aslef statement from Finn Brennan, ASLEF’s organiser on the Underground said "We have repeatedly offered to meet LU to discuss this dispute but, instead of getting around the table, they have sent a stream of letters threatening legal action to try to prevent our members from exercising their democratic right to strike.
ASLEF members at Acton voted by 98% in favour of strike action. But, instead of recognising the concerns of our members, and reps, LU management are refusing to acknowledge that they have failed to follow their own procedures; threatened a disciplinary hearing to make a driver “agree” to be redeployed; and now refuse to talk to this union.
When management are intent on getting their way by threats and intimidation then we need to take a strong stand to protect our agreements and ensure fair treatment at work."
Clear as mud, but with an undertone that were not happy that this dangerous driver was no longer in the cab where the union wanted them.
That he failed a breath test isn't in doubt. However, to use your own suggestion: Google it.
From the BBC article - The transport authority said it had explored in detail the suggestion that diabetes could affect the breathalyser result, but concluded that the type of test it used was not affected by acetone, which is produced in the bloodstream of people with the condition.
Drunk.
The "drunk driver" dispute was actually about whether the testing system was accurate for people with certain medical conditions. Not saying whether it was justified, just clarifying that it wasn't really about defending "a drunk driver".
So you question whether people read the news, express surprise that they haven't read a specific article but then don't seem to have read the article yourself.
Certainly did read the the article.
Drunk driver failed a breathalyser. Employer considered whether their medical condition could have caused a false reading; it couldn't.
Union pushed for drunk driver to be put back in the cab.
At no point in the article does it say the Driver was drunk. Do you have evidence or another article where it states they were drunk ? Are you aware of the results of the test and what level is allowed in the company drugs and alcohol policy ?
Llanigraham
On Moderation
You obvously haven't read the article or made a note of the medical comments that follow it about diabetics producing a substance that can "fool" breathalisers into thinking there is alcohol present. It is why the Police have specific rules about breath testing diabetics.
I would suggest that there is no such undertone. You imagined it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Article says "London Underground (LU) said the driver had been dismissed for failing two random breath tests".
Failing a breath test = consumed too much alcohol, aka 'drunk'.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,242
Do you know what the limits are for failing a breath test on the railways? It's low enough that you could fail the test and then get in your car and perfectly legally drive home. So hardly 'drunk'.
I would hope the driver who failed the breathalyser would, but clearly they didn't.
Whatever the limit, I think it perfectly reasonable to describe as 'drunk' someone who had consumed so much alcohol that they are unsafe to to do their job and yet still tried to do their job whilst unsafe.
Not in the slightest. That is a false analogy.
That is a huge step from 'failing a breath test' I could 'fail' my TOCs drugs test for a multitude of reasons but none would make me an 'addict' or 'high' You are making a inference and a very disingenuous one too.
Precisely
No level has been mentioned. Would one pint be 'drunk' ?
Where has the article mentioned anything about the Driver being 'unsafe' to do their job ? Are you aware of the history behind the current drugs and alcohol policies and the level of historic alcohol use on the railway ?
That is *far* from being a true statement. It is very easy to fail a breathalyser test without consuming any alcohol.
I disagree. But knowingly being over the limit is something I would consider stupid.
They said that it couldn't. But then they're hardly likely to say "The test might be inaccurate but you're still fired" are they?
I read the news, doesn't mean I'll remember the exact details of a minor, near three-year old story. I suppose you have a clear recollection of when Andrew Sharkey escaped from prison?
tiptoptaff
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,029
Much akin to the driver who failed a drugs screening for opiates, root cause? Poppy seed bread. Driver was in no way high or a drug addict. It took union intervention to prevent him being fired unfairly. It is not black and white, despite what you'd like to believe.
And that was ruled out in this case.
- Status